RE: Demanding reparations, past slavery, past land loss, and the false justification there in.
I think it originates from very simple base ideas.
Even small life forms such as ants, termites, and pretty much any other life form will designate something as their shelter, their area. Many animals also have areas beyond their dens that become their hunting areas. They will even fight over such areas.
You having a home you can return to and sleep regularly becomes in concept property.
Now, it can extend the more we think and we create. If I make a tool, art, food, or whatever with my own effort it is likely I didn't do it so others can simply come take it from me without my permission. It thus becomes my property. If I VOLUNTEER it to others then I give it to others. If I VOLUNTEER it to some pool then it is still my choice. If it is taken by force or without my volunteering it that is called theft.
It is simple. It is nature. It is survival. It is motivating.
Communism is idiocy. It sounds good on a purely emotional level as it focuses on negatives to highlight and claims to be the solution. Yet those negatives are outliers and they are part of life. The proposed solution removes voluntarism from the equation and it is used to justify great evil. It can work in small groups of people that all voluntarily agree to be part of it, but it does not scale well. It becomes a tool for oligarchy that controls the deluded system and enslaves the rest.
Property is a very real thing. It existed long before the concept of a crown.
Denying it's existence is denying reality. It is a fantasy, or if you study it realistically a nightmare.
Then you will agree that the concept of "property" has inherent within it force and force projection. All creatures of this planet take existing resources by force and define them as theirs. "Theft," then, is merely the actions of a weaker foe in taking resources from the stronger. When the strong take resources, it is considered to be "private property" or the "common wealth."
What is the crown but the very symbol of force and power projection? Without this symbol of power and force monopoly, nothing exists that can be termed "property," private or public. It is the crown and its symbols that prevent the would be Huns from eating your children, raping your wife, and burning your house down. The White Afrikaans are learning painfully that without political power, legal statues are but wind and "property" is but illusion.
Does man exist in a vacuum of culture, society, politics, and religion that he claims to "create" ex nihilo? His very being is a byproduct of his sociocultural matrix; his very thoughts are founded upon those of his wiser forebears; his very speech has been given to him by the language conventions of his society. And what is society but the crown that has defined, established, and guaranteed the very place of a man's birth?
Voluntarism is a nice fantasy to lull the unlettered peasants into working more diligently at the tasks assigned them, but for you and I, who are discussing matters of governance, let's not devolve the discussion into meaningless rhetoric fit only for propaganda. The obstacle for the ascendancy of the libertarian faction is the peculiar problem of defining "property" without invoking the crown. The 'Murican "conservative" rhetoric is more apt in gathering popular support without encountering the thorny issue of property and voluntarism.
I typically refer to aggression as force.
I do not consider self defense force, or defending your home, the things you make with your own hands, the things someone gives you as a gift or in exchange for effort or goods from you.
I actually see stealing from other people as force. I have zero problems with self defense.
Stealing is a choice. Taking someone else's property is a choice.
The robber playing semantic games doesn't make it suddenly a good thing.
How did any man come to "own" any thing on this planet without first taking the said thing via use of force? Laws and definitions are written by the victors, and the descendents of these victors "own" property. "Agression" and "self-defense" are semantic arguments regarding conquest. If a man arbitrarily defines creation as being his "private" property and uses violence to enforce his arbitrary declaration, is such action conquest or self-defense? All property is defined and acquired through violence and force. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.
Nope.
Arriving as an animal does and setting up a home, lair, den, abode.
Force HAS (but not in all cases) been used to take such places from other people. Yet I have not condoned that.
I also don't base my reality of now on the bad things done in the past which ultimately are irrelevant unless you own a time machine and can go back and change it.
Then if I pick up a stone and start etching art in it. Generally that is MY creation, and my property. Again no force involved. Force is involved when someone such as yourself thinks it is okay for you to come take it from me because it was not my property. Hell I may not have been done with what I was doing to it. It doesn't matter.
Nature will show you how well that works out. It's imaginary fantasy.
No it is not. You are deluding yourself.
For it to be force I have to take it from someone else. There are plenty of cases where that is not required. I already gave you some examples in the the previous reply. Your cognitive dissonance is very active trying to defend imaginary ideas.
LOL, so private property is declared, when someone labels a piece of creation with the tag "MINE," and presto! he owns that piece of creation? And anyone who refuses to accept the said man's insane claim is the "aggressor?" Your concept is so insane that not even homeless schizophrenics attempt to use it to alleviate their misery. Maybe you believe that you created yourself ex nihilo, as well as this universe, so anything you label "MINE" belongs to you.
The stuff you write is for the foolish youths and unlettered peasants. Don't insult my intellect with the propaganda rhetoric, in which you don't even believe.
Okay... let me make this REALLY SIMPLE for you.
Do you have kids? If not have you ever taught kids?
Do you allow them to simply go up and take things out of other kids hands?
Do you allow them to go take the food that someone else is eating that may have sat down in front of them on a table?
If you do then you are quite stupid. I actually doubt you do.
So let me put it this way. I am trying to head off strife. You are trying to foster it.
Come try to take something that I put effort into creating. I dare you. ;)
How apt that children are invoked in discussing libertarians. Immature children, like the deluded libertarians, are aware only of their privileges and benefits that were conferred upon them by the status of their forebears, imagining that they've somehow earned their privileged position, never realizing that their comforts are solely derived from the accident of their birth. You can not reconcile the origin of property and ledgerisation without invoking force projection, so by necessity you attempt to mislead by the above cock and bull example that begins in the middle. How the forebears of these children defined and assigned property does not interest you because to investigate such question would be to admit that your pseudo social philosophy is at best a reverie, at worst a fraud.
Enough with your hollow, empty threats. If your faction had the political power and the strength of will to resist property redistribution, you would not be concocting hogwash nonsense to justify your current privileged position inherited from your forebears.
I'm still waiting for you to provide something other than platitudes, support of things that have been done MANY TIMES and failed, etc.
Cognitive dissonance. Learn to deal with it. It is part of maturing regardless of what labels and topics you choose to use when clearly you already have a pre-conceived bias that you are certain is correct so you as a "mature" person need not actually learn and seriously think about things. You simply must attack anything that threatens your religion.
Go right ahead. Keep making a fool of yourself if that is what entertains you.
As proof...
I have no faction. I am an individual. You are the one that is stuck in group think, not I.
Typical idiocy people use against people they don't even know.
My ancestors walked the trail of tears. I grew up living in trailers and even tents a good part of my life. No one helped me go to college. No one paid my way. I have not inherited anything.
Go ahead and continue basking in the envy inside your mind that sadly is not justified or rational as you seek ways to justify why it is okay to be a thief and an aggressor while you and your ilk would clearly get to somehow magically have the "privilege" to dictate who viable targets are.
EDIT: And I stand by what I said. Go ahead and try to take the things I worked for, created, etc. Go for it. You will have to kill me and I won't go passively. I also can think. I see weapons when I need them everywhere. I keep my mind aware of them for self defense purposes from thieves/robbers/bandits/and self-righteous priests like you.
Oh by the way. Nice deflection. You did deflect me for awhile.
Yet I asked relevant questions. I didn't invoke children for emotional reasons as you seem to be trying to imply.
I invoked them because we were talking about something that all children go through, and that they will typically be educated about.
Also because it is likely that the way people educate children likely destroys your claims on property.
Though I do note you side stepped answering and instead decided to label me an immature libertarian, and indicate how privileged my position is and about my non-existent inheritance.
Instead of answering the questions you decided to attack based upon assumptions about things you know nothing about.